Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Seems like Bf 110C (engine DB 601A) was good for 326 mph per some German data (link, link).
Loss of one Bf 110 was twice as 'painful' for Luftwaffe logistics as it will be a loss of one Bf 109. Or, if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109.
maybe i've in mind data for a late variant with DB 601N (P) or E (F), however 325 mph is not few, (this are for combat&climb power? this deutsch...)
If you compare the Hurricane with the Me 110, they're fairly evenly matched. The Me 110 must boom and zoom, the Hurricane dogfight.IDK is the Bf 110 was underrated or overrated, but i know that it was a good fighter until 1941, they could fight with most of fighters they encountered, only v/s a very few it's in clear inferiority but is not hopeless. Take in the count the world was full of old fighters, some were 200s mph, and a 350 mph Bf 110 not need to dogfighting for get result, like as the US fighters in late war don't need dogfighting with the Zero and the Ki 43.
Or, if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109.
I'm still trying to find the logical premise path of this.
I fear I never will...
Chart is marked as prelimnary
Speed is given for 5 min rated engine power
It's possible the chart is for the old DB 601A with 4km rated alt as the 4.5km is stated as "mit Stauerhöhung" (with rammed air effect).
A 4.5km-rated DB 601A on a Bf 110 would lead to max speed achieved at an alt above rated alt due to rating being with static air.
It is really simple. You tell me what to post and I will post it.
Really simple, I'm telling you.
I'm still trying to find the logical premise path of this.
I fear I never will...
So, you lose a 109, you lose a pilot.
You lose a 110, you lose a pilot. You lose a Bordfunker as well.
Now, show me the mathmatical calculation that proves your theory of "...if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109...", when the consideration of the performance of an aircraft type versus another aircraft type is in how the two actually perform against laid-down criteria. Is it not? The VARIABLE is the quality and ability of the pilot.
As I posted previously, all four of the main fighters in the BoB battered the hell out of their opponents. The loss figures prove that. Furthermore, a damaged engine in a 109 usually meant they had to come down in England or risk ending up in the Channel. A damaged engine on a 110 meant on many occasions that the pilot got back to France on one good engine. I can provide you with examples if you wish...
My post said too little, too late and I am sure! You cannot make one part of the expression bold and not the other. Yes they were there at the start, but what EPG 210 worked on had to be perfected and part of LW strategy before the battle started. By batted out of the game I meant it was proved uncompetitive with single engined fighters as a fighter. In total, its losses amounted to all its front line strength at the start, what was left in service represented what had been produced during the battle, substantially less than produced which is unsustainable. By the end Spitfire and Hurricane numbers were substantially more. If the Bf 110 was used as a precision ground attack weapon things may have been different. However "Erprobungsgruppe" has a clue in its name, it was a test unit ( from my knowledge of German where I worked but not in 1940), experimenting with a new use for the Bf110. To have a dramatic and game changing effect many or most Bf 110 should have been used that way. But then you must remove many units from the Battle of France with their kills and in the Battle of Britain with their kills because they were bombers. I agree they should have concentrated on the RADAR stations and they should have concentrated on airfields. Having Manston downgraded to an emergency field by late August sums up the issue, it was closer to LW airfields in France than it was to London, it should have been rendered inoperable in the first few days. From German intelligence they won. They eliminated the front line strength of the RAF during the battle but completely underestimated British production of fighters and pilots. Their lack of "intelligence" in the military sense also meant they successfully wrecked airfields that were nothing to do with defence, like coastal command fields a complete waste of effort.I posted this: "...Too little, too late? Are you sure?..."
Is the 13th July 1940 too late? That's when Erprobungsgruppe 210 carried out its first mission during the Battle of Britain. Too late - I don't understand what you mean. And of course, we are posting in English, given that it my first language.
The Me 110 wasn't batted out of the game. If you examine the losses of the Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf 109 and Bf 110, you will see that all four fighters battered the hell out of their opponents during the Battle. The losses of each ran into hundreds. Yet the 109 appears to get a 'free pass' despite the fact it got knocked down in massive numbers during the Battle. Truth be told, it was no more effective in protecting the Lw bombers than the 110. When you tie the 109 & 110, capable of 350 m.p.h., to close escort to bombers flying at around 200 m.p.h. (less into a headwind), while opposing fighters have no such speed constraint, those 109s and 110s are going to suffer losses they would otherwise not have had, had they been free to range ahead of the bombers at combat speed to intercept the intercepting RAF fighters.
I would suggest that the decisions of those higher up than unit level resulted in the Lw having no effect on the ultimate course of the Battle. 210's raids on the RDF stations on 12th August (when 3 were initially knocked out for some hours) should have been followed up with consistent attacks to wipe them out completely, but those higher up the chain decided not to do so. 210 was almost certainly the main protagonist in having Manston turned into an emergency landing ground by 24th August.
One can argue that whatever ANY LW unit did had no effect on the course of the Battle, for the simple reason that we won.
No Hurricane pilot was worried taking on a Bf 110 in combat 1 on 1.tomo pauk,
1. You still haven't answered the query I raised against this: "...if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109..."
2. You have moved on to this: "...twice the number of engines, cooling systems, propellers and raw pounds worth of airframes..."
Doesn't fool me. Answer the original point I raised with you. If the 110 can't have a twice as favourable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter. Sorry, but that kind of logic is simply, fatally flawed, because you cannot prove it for a second.
And then you move on to production cost. Again, sorry, but what has production cost got to do with performance? The answer is 'nothing'. The two are not inter-dependent in any way.
"...So if the return of investment for Bf 110s is not way, way better than what it was for the 1-engined fighters in use in the crucial air campaign of ww2 (BoB), the Bf 110 is a worse fighter than those..." Again, you are simply making a statement with no proof to back up your assertion. You set investment against performance - there are so many variables that you cannot arrive at any logical conclusion.
As for training, well that is relative also. The pilots of 3./StG 77 who moved to 2./Erpr. Gr. 210 at the beginning of July 1940 went from flying the single-engined Ju 87 to flying the Bf 110 D fighter-bomber on 13th July on the first combat mission. Quite a swift conversion...
Oh, one final thing for you to consider:
Bf 109 losses in the BoB: 534,
Bf 110 losses in the BoB: 196.
My post said too little, too late and I am sure! You cannot make one part of the expression bold and not the other. Yes they were there at the start, but what EPG 210 worked on had to be perfected and part of LW strategy before the battle started. By batted out of the game I meant it was proved uncompetitive with single engined fighters as a fighter. In total, its losses amounted to all its front line strength at the start, what was left in service represented what had been produced during the battle, substantially less than produced which is unsustainable. By the end Spitfire and Hurricane numbers were substantially more. If the Bf 110 was used as a precision ground attack weapon things may have been different. However "Erprobungsgruppe" has a clue in its name, it was a test unit ( from my knowledge of German where I worked but not in 1940), experimenting with a new use for the Bf110. To have a dramatic and game changing effect many or most Bf 110 should have been used that way. But then you must remove many units from the Battle of France with their kills and in the Battle of Britain with their kills because they were bombers. I agree they should have concentrated on the RADAR stations and they should have concentrated on airfields. Having Manston downgraded to an emergency field by late August sums up the issue, it was closer to LW airfields in France than it was to London, it should have been rendered inoperable in the first few days. From German intelligence they won. They eliminated the front line strength of the RAF during the battle but completely underestimated British production of fighters and pilots. Their lack of "intelligence" in the military sense also meant they successfully wrecked airfields that were nothing to do with defence, like coastal command fields a complete waste of effort.
All this is a "what if". The German military in all other battles had rolled up the opposition. Once you over run the first airfields, even if planes and pilots escape you have the spares ground crew and any plane that couldnt fly that day. Very quickly you have the opposition on the run and less and less effective. When the LW came up against the channel it was a different opponent and a different situation. They never really understood the role of RADAR, when they knocked some out and they were still intercepted they gave up trying. Did they not consider that they overlapped? Even their intelligence told them they did. To really knock a hole in it you need to take three out side by side along the coast and keep them out then the middle one is the hole.
I think the fall of France took everyone by surprise, most of all Germany. They hadnt considered at all what they would do or how they would attack UK because they didnt expect to be in that situation. They hadnt come across a defence system using RADAR as the basis for command and control, even when it was over they (or Goering) were pretty much unaware of what happened and how it happened.
No Hurricane pilot was worried taking on a Bf 110 in combat 1 on 1.
I can say it because it is true. However most "kills" in the BoB were not fair fights, both sides were looking for a bounce or an ambush that was given to them by cunning, guile, experience, RADAR, planning or luck. No FW 190 pilot would want to be on the receiving end of a Mosquito fighter bombers 4 cannon and 4 Mgs but a competent experienced pilot would back themselves in an FW190. Statistically a Hurricane pilot will spot a Bf110 before he is spotted, it is lighter and has better rate of turn and climb and generally faster.I don't know how you can say that unequivocally. One mistake and you were in front of two cannon and four MGs...
And Hurricane pilots were shot down by 110s. Check out information in the 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' series (Red Kite) for examples.
Did the Germans consider a single seat, high performance Bf 110?So, you lose a 109, you lose a pilot.
You lose a 110, you lose a pilot. You lose a Bordfunker as well.
tomo pauk,
1. You still haven't answered the query I raised against this: "...if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109..."
2. You have moved on to this: "...twice the number of engines, cooling systems, propellers and raw pounds worth of airframes..."
Doesn't fool me. Answer the original point I raised with you. If the 110 can't have a twice as favourable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter. Sorry, but that kind of logic is simply, fatally flawed, because you cannot prove it for a second.
And then you move on to production cost. Again, sorry, but what has production cost got to do with performance? The answer is 'nothing'. The two are not inter-dependent in any way.
"...So if the return of investment for Bf 110s is not way, way better than what it was for the 1-engined fighters in use in the crucial air campaign of ww2 (BoB), the Bf 110 is a worse fighter than those..." Again, you are simply making a statement with no proof to back up your assertion. You set investment against performance - there are so many variables that you cannot arrive at any logical conclusion.
As for training, well that is relative also. The pilots of 3./StG 77 who moved to 2./Erpr. Gr. 210 at the beginning of July 1940 went from flying the single-engined Ju 87 to flying the Bf 110 D fighter-bomber on 13th July on the first combat mission. Quite a swift conversion...
Oh, one final thing for you to consider:
Bf 109 losses in the BoB: 534,
Bf 110 losses in the BoB: 196.